All of the parties to this matter have agreed to magistrate judge jurisdiction over the proceedings, including the entry of final judgment. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s

motion (Doc. 10) to remand this matter to the state court.1 On August 3, 2010, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint to quiet title to real property in the Maricopa County Superior Court. Plaintiff also alleged Defendants were

liable to her for monetary damages based on Defendants’ breach of contract. The complaint further asserted causes of action

A motion (Doc. 12) to dismiss Quality Loan Service Corporation as a party to this matter and Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 8) are also pending.

$650,000 residential home loan to Plaintiff from First Horizon Home Loan Corporation. The complaint filed in state court also

sought injunctive relief, i.e., to vacate a substitution of trustee and assignment of deed of trust and Notice of Trustee’s Sale. On September 20, 2010, Defendants Metlife Home Loans, Bank of New York Mellon, First Horizon Home Loans, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Incorporated, filed a Notice of Removal in this Court. Defendants assert complete diversity of

the parties and the amount in controversy as the sole basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Plaintiff in state Superior Court. On September 22, 1010, these

Defendants filed a motion to strike the complaint filed in the state Superior Court, citing Rules 8(a)(2) and (d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand her suit to the state court on September 24, 2010, arguing that Defendants failed to comply with the technical requirements for removal. Defendants filed a response to the motion to remand (Doc. 13). In her reply to the response to her motion to remand, Plaintiff concedes that Defendants have met the technical requirements for removal, but Plaintiff now contends that the case should be remanded to the state court because of the nature of the causes of action. See Doc. 22. The Court notes that no party to this

matter indicates there are or have been federal questions in this matter which would confer jurisdiction on a basis other
-2-

than diversity. The Court concludes judicial economy, fairness, comity, the existence of novel issues under Arizona law, and the

necessity for the Court to interpret Arizona state statutes weigh heavily in favor of the Court declining jurisdiction over this matter. Remand at this time will reduce litigation costs

and eliminate any need to certify novel state-law issues to the Arizona Supreme Court or speculate how the Arizona Supreme Court would rule on those issues. The Court acknowledges that it has a “virtually Colorado

unflagging obligation” to exercise its jurisdiction.

River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817-18, 96 S. Ct. 1236, 1246-47 (1976). The United States

District Courts have an obligation and a duty to decide cases properly before them, and “[a]bstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule.” U.S. at 813, 96 S. Ct. at 1244. Id., 424

However, in certain exceptional

circumstances, the Court can and should decline to exercise jurisdiction. “Pragmatic considerations of judicial efficiency, as well as reasons of comity between federal and state courts”, have led the United States Supreme Court to construct several abstention doctrines. Hanlin Grp., Inc. v. Power Auth. of the

State of New York, 703 F. Supp. 305, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). A District Court may abstain from consideration of the merits of a diversity case because of unclear state law.

diversity jurisdiction when a similar legal action is pending in state court. See Colorado River Water Conservation Dist., 424 When the requirements for

U.S. at 817-18, 96 S. Ct. at 1246-47.

abstention are present, the District Court’s decision to abstain from exercising diversity jurisdiction is a matter within the Court’s discretion. See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Quackenbush, 87 F.3d 290, 294 (9th Cir. 1996). Burford abstention [T]he Supreme Court has stated that Burford abstention is appropriate in two situations. First, federal courts should abstain from deciding difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar. We should also abstain from the exercise of federal review that would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern. International Coll. of Surgeons v. City of Chicago, 153 F.3d 356, 362 (7th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The Supreme Court has characterized Burford abstention as appropriate where the “exercise of federal review of the question in a case and in similar cases would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a
-4-

processes, abstention is not required “whenever there exists such a process, or even in all cases where there is a ‘potential for conflict’ with state regulatory law or policy.” New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 362, 109 S. Ct. 2506, 2515 (1989). Moreover, a District

Court should not abstain merely because there are complex and difficult issues of state law involved in the controversy before it. Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228, 236, 64 S. Ct. 7,

12 (1943). When deciding whether to invoke Burford abstention the Court must consider the underlying rationale of administrative
-5-

matter is warranted when the state has concentrated suits involving the local issue in a particular court; the federal issues are not easily separated from complicated state law issues with which the state courts may have special competence; and federal review might disrupt state efforts to establish a coherent policy. Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc., 379 F.3d 654,

671 (9th Cir. 2004); City of Tucson, 284 F.3d at 1133; United States v. Morros, 268 F.3d 695, 705 (9th Cir. 2001). The issues involved in this suit, i.e., Defendants’ compliance with state law regarding real property mortgages and foreclosure, are issues subject to specific Arizona statutory and regulatory schemes and involving Burford complex state “is

from exercising diversity jurisdiction over the complaint in this matter. Younger Abstention The “Younger” doctrine of abstention, which provides that federal courts are not to interfere with pending state criminal proceedings, also applies to civil cases and state administrative proceedings. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm.

District Courts are prevented from enjoining pending state judicial proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances. See

Middlesex County Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 437, 102 S. Ct. at 2524. Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there are

ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise any federal claims. See, e.g., Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d

It appears that there are on-going state proceedings for the foreclosure of Plaintiff’s real property. Additionally, Arizona has an important interest in resolving real property issues. A ruling on the issues in Plaintiff’s complaint by the

Arizona courts implicates the important interest of preserving the authority of the state’s judicial system free from

Court should abstain from reaching the merits of this matter. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 1528 (1987). Rooker-Feldman abstention The fact that a foreclosure judgment has been entered against Plaintiff by a state court is sufficient to invoke the doctrine of “Rooker-Feldman” abstention. should decline jurisdiction over any The District Court claims relying on

allegations of wrongful foreclosure. The doctrine established by the Rooker and Feldman cases essentially holds that the federal District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over cases brought by

“state-court losers” complaining of injuries caused by state court judgments, or over cases inviting the District Court to
-8-

v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1522 (2005). The doctrine is generally applied in cases wherein the plaintiff files a suit in the federal court to vacate a state court’s foreclosure. The Rooker Feldman doctrine allows federal courts to decline diversity jurisdiction when (1) the party in federal court is the same as the party in state court; (2) the prior state court ruling was a final or conclusive judgment on the merits; (3) the party seeking relief in federal court had a reasonable opportunity to raise its federal claims in the state court proceeding; and (4) the issue before the federal court was either adjudicated by the state court or was inextricably intertwined with the state court’s judgment. Storck v. City of Coral Springs, 354 F.3d 1307, 1310 n.1 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Supreme Court clarified the reach of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S. Ct. 1517 (2005). The Supreme Court carefully prescribed the

circumstances in which the doctrine applies: (1) there was a state court action; (2) one party lost; (3) judgment was entered in the state court action against the losing party; (4) the losing party commenced a new action complaining of injuries caused by the state court judgment; and (5) the new action invited the district court to review and reject the state court judgment. 1522. Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S. Ct. at

Citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, in a string of recent unpublished decisions the federal courts have uniformly determined that federal suits seeking the recision of a mortgage loan contract, or alleging that a lender’s malfeasance resulted in a foreclosure, belong in the state courts. The courts have

reached this conclusion even when the plaintiff originates the suit in federal court and asserts a claim based on the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). See, e.g., Parker v. Potter, 368

Conclusion Given the nature of the Arizona foreclosure process, it is difficult the to determine when the rights property of are the parties

regarding

subject

residential

completely

determined. upon

The Court is left with a single conclusion based doctrines. Because this matter involves

alternative

evolving issues of state administrative law, the notions of comity and to judicial the economy implicate Burford the abstention. Court should

Pursuant

Rooker-Feldman

doctrine,

decline to conduct an appellate-like review over the order authorizing the sale of the real property. Alternatively, if

there has been no final determination of the rights of the parties because the foreclosure process has not been concluded, then the Court should abstain under the Younger doctrine. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 10) to remand this matter to state court is granted. The Clerk of the

Court shall engage in the process required for remand of this matter to the state Superior Court from which it was removed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motions at Doc. 8 and Doc. 12 are denied without prejudice. DATED this 3rd day of December, 2010.